Archaic Song and Society

Echos du Monde CLassique/CLassicaL Views XXXVI, n.s. 11, 1992,255-70 ARCHAI C SONG AND SOCIETY* BOB DEVELIN I qualify as one of what has probably become an old school. A specialist in things Greek and Roman since just before my sixteenth birthday, already versed in the ancient languages, I went through Cambridge in the late 1960s when the programme was heavily philological. Of nine compulsory papers in Part One of the Tripo s, five were language paper s; Greek and Latin literature had each its own paper, while the histories and philosophies were each combined. There was never any doubt that I would do the ancient history specialisation for Part Two and I made a gesture of sorts by going outside Classics for my minor option, namely (mediaeval) political thought. I carefully avoid saying that I decided to become a historian. I can see now that there was some attempt to impress on me what that might mean , but I was a philologist who was going to pursue the history of antiquity. In spite of the fact that I compl eted my doctorate in a history departm ent at the University of Michigan, my eagerness, among other factors, prevented my absorbing more from that experience than I did. The system at Michigan required graduate students of modem eras to take two courses pre-1500, and so many had done some serious ancient history. Their comments about the * The nature of this pap er necessitates more annotation than I am wont to usc. Even so I have tried to keep it to a reasonable minimum. Phil ologi st though I am, I have resisted the temptation to indulge in close analys is of text s. Ba ckg round reading over the years has form ed what understanding I have of arch aic poetr y and this is a debt which cannot be speci fically acknowledged. I should say also that I do not apologise for using translati on s of modern work s in thi s co ntext-some incorp orate revi sion s. For texts of the poets I have used the following: Hesiod, Theogony ed. M.L. West (Oxford 1966). Hesiod, Works and Days cd. M.L. West (Oxford 1978). Hesiod, Fra gmenta ed. R. Merkelb ach and M.L. West in OCT Hesiod (1970). Jambi et ELegi Graec i 2 vols ed. M.L. We st (Oxford 1971 , 1972 ). Poetae MeLici Graeci ed. D.L. Page (Oxford 1962). Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta cd. E. Lobel and D.L. Page (Oxford 1955 ). Pindarus rr4 ed. B. Snell and H. Mahl er (Leipzig 1975 ). The foll owin g books are referred to by auth or 's name alone: C. R. Beye, An cient Greek Literature and Society: (Ithaca 1987 ); A.P. Burn ett, Three Ar chai c Poets , ArchiLochu s, Alcaeus, Sappho (Londo n 1983); D.A . Campbell, The GoLden Lyre. The Themes of the Greek Lyric Poets (Lo ndon 1983); H. Franke l, EarLy Greek Poetry and Phil osop hy (tra ns. M. Had as and J. Willi s; Oxford, Blackw ell 1975 ); B. Gentili, Poet ry and its Publ ic in An cient Greece (trans. A.T. Co le; Balt imore 1983) 255 256 BOBDEVEUN methodological naivete they saw and excessive annotation stayed with me and grew through the years. From subsequent reading on and consideration of the nature and practic e of history, I have found that it is easy enough to criticize on the basis of what historians do wrong, much more difficult to determine how thing s should be done aright-impossible, in fact, since there is no one way to approach any subject, however small, once you proceed beyond merely technical elements . It remained that I was not particularly well-equipped to develop and express ideas on method. I am aware that the Cambridge of my day and before produced people of such ability, so this was not inevitable. But much of what I have done has been founded on a close approach to texts. I am well-educated as a philologist and I do love the exercise of working out what a text says. I hope enough people think I'm...